anxa 
88-B 
6170 


WILLIAM  PITT,  EARL  OF  CHATHAM 

and  the  Pitt  Statues  in  Cork,  Ireland,  and 
Charleston,  South  Carolina 


by 

CHARLES  HENRY  HART 


Presented  to  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society 
February  n,  1915 


BOSTON 
1915 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/charleswillsonpeOOhart 


CHARLES  WILLSON  PEALE'S 


Allegory  of 

WILLIAM  PITT,  EARL  OF  CHATHAM 

and  the  Pitt  Statues  in  Cork,  Ireland,  and 
Charleston,  South  Carolina 


by 

CHARLES  HENRY  HART 


Presented  to  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society 
February  n,  191 5 


BOSTON 
1915 


Fifty  Copies 
Reprinted  from  Proc.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc,  Vol.  48 


CHARLES  WILLSON  PEALE'S 

ALLEGORY  OF  WILLIAM  PITT 


In  the  very  important  "Volume  lxxi"  of  Collections  of  the 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  recently  issued,  containing  the 
Letters  and  Papers  of  John  Singleton  Copley  and  Henry  Pelham, 
will  be  found,  on  pages  100  to  104,  three  documents  of  peculiar 
interest.  One  of  them  is  the  draft  of  a  letter  from  John  Single- 
ton Copley  to  Charles  Willson  Peale,  acknowledging  from 
Peale  an  impression  of  his  mezzotint  allegory  of  William  Pitt, 
Earl  of  Chatham,  and  the  other  two  are  broadsides  issued  by 
Peale,  advertising  the  allegory.  The  original  letter  that  passed 
from  Copley  to  Peale  varies  in  so  many  particulars  from  the 
original  draft,  as  is  often  the  way  in  such  cases,  that  I  have  tran- 
scribed it,  by]  permission,  from  the  original  in  the  Brook  Club, 
New  York,  where  it  hangs  pendant  to  Copley's  portrait  of 
Governor  George  Scott  of  Dominica. 

Boston,  Deer.  17, 1770. 

Dear  Sir,  —  I  received  your  favour  of  the  24.  of  Novr:  with  your 
kind  present  which  came  to  hand  in  good  order;  it  gave  me  a  toofold 
pleasure;  first  because  it  is  the  portrait  of  that  great  Man,  in  the 
most  exalted  carractor  human  can  be  dignified  with,  that  of  a  true 
Patriot  vindicateing  the  rights  of  Mankind;  and  secondly  for  the 
merit  of  the  work  itself,  and  the  fair  prospect  it  affords  of  Americas 
rivaling  the  Continant  of  Europe  in  those  refined  Arts  that  have 
been  justly  esteemed  the  Greatest  glory  of  ancient  Greece  and  Rome; 
go  on  Sir  to  hasten  forward  that  happy  Era. 

How  little  my  natural  abillitys  or  oppertunitys  of  improvements 
may  be  adiquate  to  the  promoteing  so  great  a  work,  yet  I  should  sin- 
cerely participate  with  those  great  Souls  who  are  happily  possessd  of 
boath  in  a  soverain  degree. 

The  Aligory  strikes  me  as  unexceptionably  in  every  part  and 
strongly  expressive  of  the  Ideas  it  is  design'd  to  convey,  the  Attitude 
which  is  simple  is  possessed  of  great  dignity  with  a  becoming  energy; 
from  what  the  print  expresses  I  am  induced  to  wish  to  see  ye  paint- 


4 


ing  ye  force  of  Colouring  gives  strength  and  perfection  to  the  Clear 
obscure. 

Permit  me  to  conclude  with  my  sincere  thanks  for  the  kind  notice 
you  have  taken  of  me  as  well  in  the  expressions  accompanying  the 
print  as  in  the  print  itself,  for  the  first  if  not  for  boath,  I  cannot 
expect  to  be  out  of  your  Debt.  I  am  Dear  Sir  Your  sincere  friend 
&  Humble;  Sert. 

John  Singleton  Copley 

[Superscription] 

For/Mr  Chs.  Wilson  Peale/ 

portrait  Painter  in  "Annapolis"/1 
pr  favour  Meriland 

The  prospectus  or  advertisement  proper,  entitled  "A/De- 
scription/of  the/Picture  and  Mezzotinto/of/Mr.  Pitt, /Done 
by/Charles  Willson  Peale,/of  Maryland./"  is  reproduced  in 
facsimile,  in  the  volume,  from  an  original  in  the  Manuscript 
Department  of  the  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C., 
where  it  was  unearthed,  some  time  ago,  by  the  industry  of  Mr. 
Worthington  C.  Ford;  but  the  supplementary  broadside,  en- 
titled "Extract  of  a  Letter,"  is  taken  from  one  in  the  Public 
Record  Office,  London,  where  are  the  other  papers  printed. 
To  collectors  of  Americana  this  print  is  a  rara  avis,  much  de- 
sired but  seldom  found,  as  there  are  but  eight  impressions 
known  to  be  in  existence.2  It  is  a  folio,  height,  23  2/16;  sub- 
height,  21  13/16;  width,  14  14/16,  signed  "Chas.  Willson 
Peale,  pinx.  et  feci."  and  lettered  "Worthy  of  Liberty.  Mr. 
Pitt  scorns  to  invade  the  Liberties  of  other  Peoples."  It  is  not 
necessary  to  describe  it  in  detail,  as  the  reproduction  speaks  for 
itself  better  than  words  can;  but  the  history  of  the  picture,  and 
of  the  figure  and  portrait  of  Pitt,  is  most  interesting,  and  so 
little  known  as  virtually  to  be  unknown. 

Pitt's  career  and  his  relation  to  the  colonies  have  been  traced 
and  considered  by  so  many  hands  and  from  so  many  view- 
points, and  are  so  well  known  if  not  so  well  understood,  that  it 
is  not  essential  to  rehearse  or  even  refer  to  them  here,  more 

1  Written  by  another  hand. 

2  Impressions  located  are:  Public  Library,  Boston  (Chaloner  Smith); 
Pennsylvania  Academy  of  the  Fine  Arts,  Philadelphia  (Phillips  Collection); 
Horace  W.  Sellers,  Philadelphia  (Charles  Willson  Peale);  Mrs.  Whitelaw  Reid, 
Ophir  Hall,  N.  Y.  (Maggs);  Francis  W.  Halsey,  New  York  (Fridenberg) ; 
R.  T.  H.  Halsey,  New  York  (J.  T.  Sabin);  Lord  Rosebery,  London,  England 
(Parsons);  Frank  M.  Sabin,  London,  England  (Mitchell). 


Statue  of  Chatham  at  Cork, Ireland 


5 


than  to  say  that  he  was  the  idol  of  a  large  portion  of  the  colo- 
nies, and  it  was  this  sentiment  that  was  the  genesis  of  Peale's 
pictorial  work,  although  it  was  not  Peale  who  originated  memo- 
rializing it  in  art.  Indeed  the  idea  had  its  birth  in  Ireland, 
where  too  Pitt  was  canonized  as  a  Great  Patriot.  Dublin  pre- 
sented him  with  the  freedom  of  the  city,  and  Cork  voted  a  statue 
to  be  erected  in  the  municipality  with  the  inscription  "Vera 
Icon  Gulielmi  Pitt  cujus  si  nomen  audies,  nihil  hie  de  fama 
desideres,"  the  order  for  which  was  given  to  Joseph  Wilton 
(1722-1803),  the  most  eminent  British  statuary  of  the  period, 
later  one  of  the  foundation  members  of  the  Royal  Academy  of 
Arts,  and  sculptor  of  the  monument  to  General  Wolfe,  the 
hero  of  Quebec,  erected  in  Westminster  Abbey,  as  also  of  many 
busts  and  statues  of  distinguished  persons.  This  statue  of  Pitt 
was  finished  in  1766,  at  a  cost  of  £500,  and  was  placed  in  the 
Exchange,  then  standing  in  Castle  Street,  in  the  city  of  Cork, 
whence  it  was  subsequently  removed  to  the  Mansion  House, 
and  to-day  will  be  found  in  the  corridor  of  the  Crawford  Mu- 
nicipal School  of  Art,  in  Emmet  Place,  Cork,  Ireland. 

Whether  the  atmosphere  surrounding  this  Irish  monument 
was  wafted  across  the  seas  and  stirred  the  colonials  similarly  to 
honor  this  friend  of  the  colonies,  or  the  idea  they  carried  out 
originated  with  themselves,  we  do  not  know;  but  coincident 
with  the  erection  of  the  statue  in  Cork,  the  Commons  House  of 
Assembly  of  South  Carolina,  on  May  8,  1766,  unanimously 
voted  "that  this  house  will  make  provision  for  defraying  the 
expense  of  procuring  from  England  a  statue  of  the  Right  Honor- 
able William  Pitt,"  and  on  June  23  voted  £7000  currency  for 
the  purpose  which,  on  November  30,  the  treasurer  of  the 
colony  was  directed  to  turn  into  "good  bills  of  exchange  for 
£1000  sterling"  and  remit  them  to  the  agent  in  Great  Britain 
toward  payment  of  the  statue.1 

The  agent  of  South  Carolina,  who  was  intrusted  with  this 
commission,  was  Charles  Garth,  member  of  Parliament  for 
Devizes  from  1761  to  1784,  who  by  letter  of  July  9,  1766,2  ac- 
cepted with  pride  the  duty  intrusted  to  him  and  employed  Wil- 
ton, who  has,  he  wrote,  "signalized  himself  remarkably  by  a 
statue  of  Mr.  Pitt  finished  this  Spring,  for  the  city  of  Cork  and 

1  South  Carolina  Hist,  and  Gen.  Magazine,  xv.  22. 

2  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.,  vin.  216. 


6 


admired  by  everybody  here  before  sent  to  Ireland."  He  men- 
tions further  that  Wilton  has  made  in  addition  two  busts  of 
Pitt  "which  for  likeness  and  workmanship  both,  are  very  greatly 
admired,"  adding,  "I  have  given  in  your  directions  to  have 
him  at  full  length  in  a  speaking  attitude  and  suitable  dress,  with 
a  roll  in  one  hand,  inscribed  Magna  Charta."  It  would  seem 
that  two  designs  were  submitted  by  Wilton  and  forwarded  to 
South  Carolina  by  Garth,  which  as  late  as  1836  were  in  posses- 
sion of  Charles  Fraser,  a  miniature  painter  in  Charleston.1 

Close  upon  the  heels  of  South  Carolina's  action,  the  citizens 
of  New  York  held  a  meeting  at  Burns  Coffee  House,  June  23, 
1766,2  and  petitioned  the  Assembly  to  erect  a  statue  in  honor 
of  Pitt.  The  measure  was  carried  through  and  Wilton  was 
engaged  also  to  make  it,  which  he  did  by  following,  with  slight 
changes,  the  one  he  was  modelling  for  Charleston.  Both 
statues  were  shipped  about  the  same  time  —  the  South  Caro- 
lina Gazette  of  May  17,  1770,  announcing  the  arrival  of  the  one 
destined  for  that  colony,  adds:  "At  the  same  time  that  the 
above  statue  was  shipped  in  Capt  White  two  others  were 
shipped  for  New  York,  one  of  his  present  Majesty  cast  in  Brass, 
the  other  of  Mr.  Pitt,  highly  finished  in  marble,  but  consider- 
ably under  the  size  of  ours."  3 

The  Charleston  statue  was  placed  on  its  pedestal  July  5, 
1770,  at  the  intersection  of  Broad  and  Meeting  Streets,  near 
which  spot  it  now  stands  within  Washington  Square.  The 
South  Carolina  Gazette  of  July  11,  1770,  describes  it  "of  fine 
white  marble,  the  Habit  Roman,  the  right  hand  holds  a  Roll 
of  Parchment,  partly  open,  on  which  we  read  '  Articuli  Magnae 
Cartae  Libertatum.'  The  left  hand  is  extended,  the  figure 
being  in  the  attitude  of  one  delivering  an  Oration."  4  This 
description  shows  that  the  instructions  transmitted  by  Garth 
were  carried  out,  and  also,  what  is  much  more  important,  pre- 
serves a  picture  of  what  the  statue  was  like  originally,  for  it 
has  suffered  many  vicissitudes.   In  1780,  April  16,  the  right 

1  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.,  vni.  217. 

2  2  Proceedings,  rv.  292. 

*  As  well  as  can  be  judged  from  what  remains  of  the  two  statues  they  were 
virtually  of  the  same  size. 

4  John  Austin  Stevens,  in  his  discourse  on  Progress  of  New  York  in  a  Century, 
describes  the  New  York  statue  ad  verbum  "from  the  journals  of  the  day." 
Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.,  vn.  67. 


Statue  of  Chatham  at  Charleston,  S.  C. 


7 


arm  was  carried  away  by  a  British  cannon  ball,  fired  from 
James  Island,  and  fourteen  years  later  the  statue  was  taken 
down  from  its  pedestal  in  such  a  careless  manner  that  the  head 
was  severed  from  the  body,  and  when  it  was  replaced  no  atten- 
tion was  paid  to  its  position  relative  to  the  action  of  the 
figure,  with  the  result  that  it  is  decidedly  awry.  The  out- 
stretched left  arm  has  also  disappeared,  so  that  to  the  casual 
observer  the  statue  has  much  the  appearance  of  a  mutilated 
antique. 

The  New  York  statue  was  erected  September  7,  1770,  at  the 
intersection  of  Wall  and  Smith,  now  William  Street;  but  during 
the  occupation  of  the  city  by  the  British  the  head  and  right 
hand  were  struck  off  in  September,  1776,  by  the  soldiery  in 
revenge  for  the  insult  previously  shown  by  the  Americans  in 
pulling  down  the  statue  of  the  King,  which  had  also  been  made 
by  Wilton.  The  headless  trunk  remained  standing  until  July, 
1788,1  when  it  was  removed,  and  after  sundry  migrations,  what 
remains  of  it  is  in  the  hall  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society. 
Maryland  also  fell  into  line,  and  in  November,  1766,  passed 
resolutions  for  a  marble  statue  of  Pitt  in  Annapolis,  but  it  seems 
not  to  have  materialized.2 

The  necessity  for  this  somewhat  minute  account  of  the 
statues  to  Pitt,  made  by  Wilton,  will  become  apparent  in  the 
consideration  of  the  Peale  allegory;  but  before  discussing  that 
subject  I  must  call  attention  to  the  extraordinary  statements  of 
Mr.  Basil  Williams,  in  his  life  of  Pitt  (1913),  where  in  Volume 
11,  p.  121,  he  says,  speaking  of  the  Cork  statue,  which  is  the 
frontispiece  to  his  book:  "It  was  made  by  the  sculptor  Wilton 
and  was  thought  so  good  by  Pitt  that  when  he  was  consulted  in 
1766  by  the  agent  for  North  [sic]  Carolina  about  a  statue  of 
him  for  Charleston,  he  recommended  Wilton  again";  and 
further,  on  p.  206:  "Garth  their  Agent  in  London  writing  on 
July  9,  1766,  says  he  has  consulted  Pitt  on  the  Sculptor  .  .  . 
and  Pitt  had  chosen  Wilton  who  had  recently  finished  the 
statue  for  Cork.  ...  It  seems  to  have  been  a  replica  of  the 
Cork  Statue."  This  is  a  most  unusual  and  remarkable  use  of 
authority,  for  Garth  says  not  a  word  about  consulting  Pitt  in 

1  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.,  iv.  59. 

2  Dedham,  Mass.,  erected  a  shaft  with  a  wooden  bust  of  Pitt  on  top.  It  is 
represented  in  the  Dedham  Historical  Register,  1.  121. 


8 


his  letter  of  July  9,  1766;  he  mentions  merely  having  advised 
Pitt  of  the  action  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Garth  does  say 
that  Pitt  did  choose  Wilton  to  make  the  Cork  statue,  which 
is  a  valuable  endorsement  of  Wilton's  likeness  of  Pitt,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Chatham  was  perfectly  well  satis- 
fied with  Wilton's  work  or  it  would  not  have  gone  forth  to  the 
public  in  so  many  different  forms  —  three  statues  and  two 
busts  —  when  a  man  of  his  power  and  consideration  could  easily 
have  prevented  it  were  it  not  satisfactory  to  him.  Neither  are 
the  American  statues  in  any  way  replicas  or  duplicates  of  the 
Irish  one,  or  alike  in  any  details,  as  can  be  seen  by  comparing 
the  reproductions. 

Charles  Willson  Peale,  who  was  a  much  better  painter  than 
he  is  generally  credited  with  being,  owing  to  his  best-known 
pictures  being  the  poorest  examples  from  his  brush,  was  born  in 
St.  Paul's  Parish,  Queen  Anne's  county,  Maryland,  April  15, 
1741,  and  died  in -Philadelphia,  February  22,  1827.  Having 
tried  many  vocations  he  determined  in  his  twenty-fifth  year 
that  art  was  the  one  he  was  best  qualified  to  follow ;  and  after 
some  instruction  from  John  Hesselius,  the  native-born  son  of 
Gustavus  Hesselius,  the  earliest  known  artist  in  America,1  he 
visited  Boston  to  get  some  hints  from  Copley,  who  was  only  a 
few  years  his  senior,  but  with  a  reputation  that  extended  not 
only  over  the  colonies  but  to  London.  In  December,  1767, 
Peale  hied  himself  to  London  and  the  studio  of  Benjamin  West, 
where  he  remained  more  than  two  years,  returning  to  Mary- 
land in  June,  1770.  While  in  London,  Peale  was  not,  as 
he  writes  in  his  autobiography,2  "content  to  know  how  to 
paint  in  one  way,  but  engaged  in  the  whole  circle  of  arts,  ex- 
cept painting  in  enamel,  also  learned  modelling  and  casting  in 
plaster  .  .  .  and  made  some  essays  at  Mezzotint  scraping." 
These  last  words  are  full  of  import  to  our  subject.  At 
that  time  the  atmosphere  was,  as  we  have  seen,  so  full  of 
the  Pitt  fever,  that  one  of  Peale's  earliest  pictorial  endeavors 
was  a  large  canvas,  ninety-six  inches  high  by  sixty-one  inches 
wide,  an  allegory  of  William  Pitt,  which  attracted  the  patri- 
otic connoisseurship  of  another  son  of  Maryland  —  Edmond 
Jenings.3 

1  Vide  Harpers'  Magazine  for  March,  1898. 

2  Perm.  Mag.  of  Hist,  and  Biog.,  xxxvm.  264. 

s  This  gentleman's  name  is  usually  wrongly  given  as  "  Edmund  Jennings." 


9 


This  gentleman  was  the  grandson  of  Edmond  Jenings,  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  of  Virginia — 1706-1710 — and  son  of  Edmond 
Jenings,  Secretary  of  State  of  Maryland,  who  married  Ariane 
Vanderheyden,  widow  of  Thomas  Bordley.  By  her  he  had  a 
daughter  who  became  the  mother  of  Edmond  Jenings  Ran- 
dolph, better  known  as  Edmund  Randolph,  a  conspicuous  mem- 
ber of  Washington's  cabinet,  and  one  son  named  for  his  father 
and  grandfather,  who,  born  in  1731,  accompanied  his  parents 
to  England  in  1737,  where  he  was  educated  and  bred  to  the 
bar.  He  was  loyal  to  the  colonies,  acted  in  several  quasi- 
diplomatic  capacities  in  behalf  of  his  native  country  such  as 
secret  agent  at  the  court  of  Brussels  and  secretary  for  some 
time  to  John  Adams.  He  resided  in  London  in  the  vicinity  of 
Kensington  Square  and  was  a  daily  visitor  to  the  Westminster 
Library,  dying  in  September,  1819,  in  his  eighty-eighth  year.1 
His  armorial  book-plate  is  in  the  Franks  Collection  at  the 
British  Museum  and  is  one  of  the  rarest  among  American  ex 
libris.  This  cultivated  American  was  requested  by  Richard 
Henry  Lee 2  to  secure  for  Westmoreland  in  Virginia  a  portrait 
of  Lord  Camden,  which  he  failed  to  accomplish  owing  to  the 
multifarious  public  engagements  of  this  great  lawyer  and 
statesman.  Instead  Jenings  wrote  to  Lee,  November  1,  1768,3 
"As  the  honest  cause  of  America  hath  been  supported  with  true 
liberality  by  that  great  man  Lord  Chatham,4 1  could  wish  that 
his  merits  were  not  forgotten  and  therefore  take  the  liberty  of 
sending  you  by  Captn.  Johnson,  his  portrait  which  if  you  think 
it  worthy  of  the  acceptance  of  the  gentlemen  of  Westmoreland, 
I  beg  you  to  offer  them  in  my  name.  It  was  executed  by  Mr. 
Peele  of  Maryland  who  was  recommended  to  me  by  several 
friends  in  that  province  as  a  young  man  of  merit  and  modesty. 
I  found  him  so,  and  heartily  wish  he  may  meet  with  every  en- 
couragement on  his  return  to  America  which  I  believe  will  be 
soon."  Jenings  adds  a  very  important  P.  S. :  "The  head  of  Lord 
Chatham  is  done  from  an  admirable  bust  by  Wilton  and  is 
much  like  him  tho'  different  from  the  common  prints."  5 

1  The  Bordley  Family,  1865;  Monthly  Magazine,  1819,  vm.  182;  Annual 
Obituary,  London,  1821,  368. 

2  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Richard  Henry  Lee,  I.  49. 
8  The  Virginia  Historical  Register,  I.  72. 

4  Elevated  to  the  Peerage,  1766. 

6  Williams  says,  p.  121,  of  the  Cork  statue:  "It  gives  a  more  lifelike  impres- 


IO 


The  gentlemen  of  Westmoreland  accepted  the  gift  and  ex- 
pressed much  appreciation  of  the  design.  It  was  set  up  at 
Chantilly,1  the  seat  of  Lee,  where  it  remained  until  1825,  when 
it  was  placed  in  the  new  courthouse  of  the  county,  to  remain 
until  1848.  It  was  then  taken  to  Richmond,  Va.,  and  hung  in 
the  house  of  Delegates  until  1902,2  when,  upon  the  erection  of 
another  new  courthouse,  in  Westmoreland  county,  at  Montross, 
the  painting  was  returned  and  placed  amid  the  environment 
originally  intended  for  it.  This  was  a  canvas  too  important  to 
the  painter,  both  for  size  and  subject,  for  him  to  allow  it  to 
pass  out  of  his  control  without  preserving  a  full  memorandum. 
Accordingly  Peale  painted  a  duplicate  nearly  the  same  size  as 
the  original  (ninety- three  inches  by  fifty-six  inches),  which  he 
brought  with  him  back  to  Annapolis  and  subsequently  presented 
to  the  state  of  Maryland,  which  the  Assembly  accepted  by  vote, 
April  16,  1774,  offering  Peale  as  a  compliment  for  his  "very 
genteel  Present,"  the  sum  of  "one  hundred  pounds  common 
money."  The  painting  hangs  in  the  state  capitol  building  at 
Annapolis.  It  was  from  this  replica  that  Peale  must  have 
scraped  his  mezzotint  plate,  and  it  would  be  interesting  to  know 
to  a  certainty  whether  the  work  was  executed  in  London  or  in 
Maryland.  The  probabilities  are  that  it  was  executed  and 
printed  in  London.  As  far  as  we  know  it  was  Peale's  first  plate, 
and  he  would  hardly  essay  it  alone  without  having  some  one 
skilled  in  the  art  at  his  elbow  to  advise  and  guide  him.  Then  it 
seems  quite  certain  that  he  could  not  get  the  necessary  copper 
plate  in  this  country,  although  he  could  have  brought  one  back 
with  him ;  but  where  was  the  plate-press  and  the  plate-printer 
to  pull  off  the  impressions,  after  the  plate  was  ready  for  proving? 
It  is  true  Peale  was  a  very  ingenious  mechanic  and  might  have 
printed  the  plate  himself,  for  he  did,  according  to  his  diary,  print 
his  small  plate  of  Washington  in  November,  1778,  and  got  the 
copper  plate  for  it  a  month  before  from  a  "  Mr.  Brook."3  Not- 
withstanding these  possibilities  the  mezzotint  was  doubtless  a 
London  product.  The  broadside  prospectus  of  the  print,  that 
has  been  mentioned,  appears  to  me  to  be  from  an  American 

sion  of  the  minister  .  .  .  than  either  of  the  two  contemporary  portraits  by 
Hoare  and  by  Brompton." 

1  R.  H.  Lee  to  Langdon  Carter,  Letters  of  Richard  Henry  Lee,  I.  76. 

2  Acts  of  Assembly  of  Virginia,  1901-1902,  676. 
*  Penn.  Mag.  of  Hist,  and  Biog.,  xxvin.  247. 


II 


press.  The  " Extract  of  a  Letter"  I  have  not  seen  in  the  origi- 
nal, but  as  its  size  corresponds  with  the  prospectus,  they  were 
doubtless  issued  from  the  same  press  contemporaneously;  in- 
deed, as  it  has  no  earmark,  alone  and  unaccompanied  by  the 
prospectus  it  would  have  no  significance  or  value.  This 
" Extract"  is  a  most  important  document  in  our  investigation. 
Although  it  purports  to  be  an  excerpt  from  a  letter,  neither 
place  nor  date  is  given,  and  inherently  it  shows,  I  think,  Peak's 
hand,  merely  cast  in  this  form  to  make  it  appear  adroitly  as 
coming  from  a  disinterested  correspondent.  It  is  really  a  plea 
for  the  correctness  of  the  likeness  of  Pitt,  which  evidently  had 
been  attacked  at  the  time  as  it  has  been  since.  Mr.  Jenings, 
anticipating  this  result  from  its  being  an  unusual  and  unfa- 
miliar portrait,  tells  Richard  Henry  Lee  it  11  is  much  like  him, 
tho'  different  from  the  common  prints."  Jenings'  comparison  is 
clearly  one  made  with  Pitt  himself,  while  the  comparisons 
made  in  the  "Extract  of  a  Letter"  are  all  with  engraved  por- 
traits of  him,  which  makes  it  plain  to  me  this  was  not  written 
in  England,  where  Pitt's  living  face  was  well  known,  but  in 
America,  where  his  living  face  was  unknown  and  his  lineaments 
only  familiar  through  the  medium  of  engravings  after  the  paint- 
ings by  Brompton  and  by  Hoare,  which  are  in  big  wig  and  in 
the  costume  of  the  period.    The  Extract  says: 

One  of  the  Mezzotinto's  was  brought  into  Company,  when  all 
agreed  it  was  Very  clever;  but  some  thought  it  "  not  like  Pitt."  .  .  . 
Perhaps  it  was  hazardous  to  offer  to  the  Public  a  Portrait  so 
unlike  the  old  Pictures,  which  have  been  long  known  among 
us.  Very  few  have  Seen  any  other  Representation  of  the  Great 
Man,  and  we  know  how  Strongly  First  Impressions  work  on  the 
Imagination:  And,  what  is  yet  more  disadvantageous  to  the 
Painter,  not  only  First  Impressions,  but  many  Years  intimate  Ac- 
quaintance with  the  old  Piece,  has  probably  So  fixed  that  Likeness 
in  the  Mind,  that,  were  Mr.  Pitt  himself  to  be  of  a  sudden  present, 
and  appear  a  Contrast  to  those  Pieces,  there  would  not  be  a  total 
Want  of  Weak  Minds,  who  might  even  struggle  to  conceive  he 
was  like  himself  —  preferring  the  Likeness  with  which  they  were  so 
intimate.1  But  between  the  old  Copies  and  the  present,  I  do  not 
see  that  great  Disparity  that  is  pretended:  Pray  attend  to  them, 

1  Is  this  the  source  of  John  Neal's  conceit  in  "Charcoal  Sketches,"  where  he 
says  if  Washington  came  back  to  earth  and  did  not  resemble  Stuart's  Washington 
he  would  be  considered  an  impostor? 


12 


and  make  all  due  Allowances  —  Twenty  Years  between  the  Draw- 
ing the  one  and  the  other  —  such  Difference  in  his  Age!  In  the 
one  he  is  in  modern  Dress,  with  Neckcloth,  a  Wig,  and  full  Suit:  In 
the  other,  with  his  natural  Hair,  a  loose  Roman  Habit,  and  Neck  bare. 
I  am  assured  that  Gentlemen,  who  had  seen  the  Proof-Copy,  and 
among  them  Dr.  Franklin,  thought  Mr.  Peak's  a  very  good  Likeness 
of  the  Great  Patriot,  as  he  is  at  this  Time,  worn  down  with  Sickness 
and  Years,  and  with  Fatigue  in  the  Service  of  his  Country. 

The  reference  to  Doctor  Franklin  having  seen  a  proof-copy 
of  the  plate,  evidently  meaning  a  proving  print  and  not  an 
early  finished  proof,  is  very  strong  evidence,  almost  conclusive, 
that  the  plate  was  well  advanced,  if  not  completely  finished,  in 
England;  for  while  a  proof  could  have  been  sent  across  the 
water  to  him,  it  is  not  in  the  least  likely  that  one  was  —  cer- 
tainly not  in  time  for  his  remarks  upon  it  to  have  come 
back  and  been  incorporated  in  this  printed  circular,  advertising 
the  plate.  Peale  did  not  get  back  to  Maryland  until  June, 
1770,  and  it  was  only  five  months  later,  in  November,  that  he 
sent  his  present  to  Copley  of  a  finished  print.  It  is  true  that 
mezzotinting  is  of  very  rapid  execution  in  comparison  with  the 
labor  of  a  burin  or  line  plate;  yet  for  a  novice  to  scrape  the 
plate  and  send  a  proof  across  the  ocean  in  those  days,  when 
Peale  himself  was  twelve  weeks  making  the  passage,  and  get 
an  acknowledgment  from  Franklin,  who  was  proverbially  delib- 
erate in  his  correspondence,  is  next  to  impossible. 

Not  that  it  counts  a  feather's  weight  one  way  or  the  other  in 
determining  the  nativity  of  the  plate,  but  simply  that  all  the 
evidence  may  be  in,  the  print  is  recorded  by  Chaloner  Smith 
in  his  British  Mezzotint  Portraits,  963,  where  the  account  of  it 
and  of  its  author  is  so  amusing  in  its  multiplicity  of  errors  that 
it  bears  quoting:  "Charles  Wilson  Peale  was  an  American 
Painter  who  practised  during  the  Revolutionary  war  and  after- 
wards visited  Europe.  He  studied  with  Copley  and  West.  The 
following  is  his  only  mezzotint,1  and  it  was  almost  certainly 
engraved  in  America  about  1777.  The  likeness  [of  Chatham] 
is  so  indifferent  that  it  must  have  been  a  fanciful  one."  The 
impression  described  by  Smith  was  purchased  at  the  sale  of 
his  collection  of  mezzotints,  in  1887,  by  the  Public  Library  of 

1  He  made  three  mezzotint  portraits  of  Washington  and  one  each  of  Doctor 
Franklin,  La  Fayette  and  Rev.  Joseph  Pilmore. 


13 


Boston,  and  at  least  three  others  have  appeared  in  England, 
which  is  additional  argument  that  the  plate  was  made  there. 

Although  we  have  Peale's  allegory  before  us  in  the  reproduc- 
tion of  the  mezzotint,  the  artist's  own  description  of  his  compo- 
sition is  not  without  interest.  In  his  manuscript  autobiography 1 
he  thus  describes  it:  "Mr.  Pitt  is  here  represented  in  Roman 
dress,  in  the  action  of  an  orator,  extending  his  right  arm  and 
points  to  the  figure  of  Liberty,  and  holding  a  scroll  in  his  left 
hand  on  which  is  written  'Magna  Charta';  before  him  an  altar 
with  a  civic  crown  on  it  and  a  flame  rising,  designate  his  zeal  in 
the  cause  of  liberty.  The  altar  is  ornamented  with  the  bust  of 
Hampden  and  Sidney,  and  wreaths  of  oak  leaves  embrace 
them.  In  the  background  is  a  piece  of  elegant  architecture, 
Whitehall,  in  front  of  which  King  Charles  I  was  beheaded." 

This  word-picture  of  his  painting,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  newspaper  description  of  the  South  Carolina  statue  on  its 
arrival,  shows  that  Peale  reversed  the  position  of  the  arms, 
making  the  left  in  the  painting  hold  Magna  Charta  instead  of 
the  right,  and  the  right  extended  in  place  of  the  left,  greatly  to 
the  advantage  of  the  figure.  The  costume  too  is  quite  differ- 
ent, and  again  the  advantage  is  with  Peale.  The  head  of  Pitt 
in  the  allegory  is  confessedly  from  Wilton's  bust  of  that  states- 
man and,  making  allowance  for  the  hard  usage  the  Charleston 
statue  has  received,  besides  its  exposure  to  the  elements  for 
almost  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  by  which  all  its  fineness 
has  been  destroyed,  leaving  a  mere  ghost  of  what  it  originally 
was,  the  head  in  Peale's  mezzotint  closely  follows  that  of  the 
statue.  Taking  it  all  in  all,  this  was  a  work  of  no  inconsiderable 
magnitude  to  be  undertaken  by  a  young  man  of  twenty-seven 
who  had  only  been  an  art  student  a  shade  more  than  two  years. 
It  was  of  magnitude  not  only  in  size  but  in  conception  and  exe- 
cution, and  shows  a  nice  intimate  knowledge  of  history  almost 
unexpected  in  a  colonist  who  had  not  had  a  collegiate  edu- 
cation. Allowing  for  any  hints  he  may  have  had  from  his 
preceptor  West,  who  was  to  become  the  greatest  history 
painter  in  England,  he  deserves  high  commendation  for  his 
accomplishment. 

From  this  completed  survey  of  the  entire  subject  it  is  clear 

1  In  possession  of  Peale's  great-grandson,  Mr.  Horace  W.  Sellers  of  Phila- 
delphia. 


14 


that  the  statue  in  Charleston  is  not  a  replica  or  duplicate  of  the 
one  in  Cork,  Ireland,  or  the  figure  in  the  Peale  picture  a  servile 
copy  of  either;  but  it  seems  quite  certain  that  the  Cork  statue 
fathered  the  thought  that  produced  those  for  America,  and  that 
Peale's  portrait,  to  say  the  least,  was  inspired  by  the  American 
marbles  which  he  doubtless  saw  in  the  studio  of  the  sculptor, 
Wilton.  The  plate  too  was  scraped  and  printed  in  London  and 
brought  overseas  for  sale,  when  Peale  got  out  his  prospectus 
and  "Extract  of  a  Letter"  together,  for  the  latter  without  the 
former  would  be  unintelligible,  and  set  to  work  to  sell  the  prints 
in  which  he  was  not  successful,  as  we  learn  from  his  autobiogra- 
phy before  cited.  He  writes,  in  the  third  person,  "When  he 
was  in  London  he  painted  a  whole  length  of  Mr.  Pitt  in  the 
idea  that  if  he  made  a  print  of  it  that  it  would  be  readily  sold  in 
America.  Therefore  he  made  a  large  mezzotint  print  from  his 
picture,  but  let  it  be  remembered  that  he  never  sold  as  many 
prints  as  would  pay  him  the  cost  of  the  paper,  perhaps  he  did 
notteke  the  proper  method  for  the  sale  of  them."  Poor  Peale 
had  not  learned  how  short-lived  was  the  acclaim  of  the  public; 
that  the  Idol  of  to-day  was  the  football  of  to-morrow.  What 
was  all  aflame  in  1768-69,  when  he  began  his  commemorative 
work,  was  dead  embers  in  1770-71,  when  his  allegory  was  ready 
for  the  market.  This  may  be  a  sad  commentary  upon  hero 
worship,  yet  it  is  true  almost  always  of  the  living;  but  Peale's 
lesson  accounts  for  the  rarity  of  his  mezzotint  to-day.  The 
only  impression  that  I  know  to  have  been  sold  at  public  sale  in 
this  country  was  in  the  noted  collection  of  Hon.  James  T. 
Mitchell,  in  Philadelphia,  October  28,  1913,  where  a  slightly 
cut-down  copy  brought  $160.  It  is  from  that  copy  our  repro- 
duction is  made,  and  we  are  indebted  to  Mr.  Stan  V.  Henkels  of 
Philadelphia  for  the  use  of  the  plate. 


